Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
Brush Creek Minor Subdivision
PREPARED BY:
HOGAN LAND SERVICES, INC.
1702 4TH STREET
SANTA ROSA, CA 95404
[PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
i Brush Creek Minor Subdivison
BRUSH CREEK MINOR SUBDIVISION
CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND INITIAL STUDY
Project Title: Brush Creek Minor Subdivision
Lead agency name and
address:
City of Santa Rosa
Planning & Economic Development
100 Santa Rosa Ave, Room 3
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Contact person: Hogan Land Services
c/o Hannah Chiu
1702 4th Street
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
(707) 544-2104
[email protected]
Project Location: 2210, 2200 Brush Creek Road, & 0 Bridgewood Drive Santa Rosa, CA 95404
APN: 182-050-004, -005, -014
Project Sponsor/Owner: Klas Berghede and Nils Welin
2327 Browning Street
Berkeley, CA 94702
General Plan Designations: RR 20 (Sonoma County); Very Low Density Residential (City)
Zoning: RR B6 20, RC50/25 VOH (Sonoma County)
Description of project: The proposed project includes the annexation, General Plan Amendment, prezone and a 4-lot subdivision with a
remainder parcel on the property located at 2210 Brush
Creek Road (APN: 182 -050-004); and, the annexation
and prezoning, consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation, of the adjacent parcels, which form a County island, located at 2200 Brush Creek Road and 0 Bridgewood Drive (APNs 182 -050-004 & -014). No new
development or further subdivision is proposed on the
sites at 2200 Brush Creek Road and 0 Bridgewood Drive.
Surrounding land uses and
setting:
The project site is surrounded by residentially zoned lots within unincorporated Sonoma County and City of Santa
Rosa. 2210 Brush Creek Road has frontage along Brush
Creek Road and Lyric Lane, 2200 Brush Creek Road has
frontage along Brush Creek Road, and APN 182-050-014
has frontage along Bridgewood Drive.
City of Santa Rosa Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Other public agencies whose
approval is required:
Improvement Plan (City of Santa Rosa)
Grading Permit (City of Santa Rosa)
Building Permit (City of Santa Rosa)
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (DWR)
California Native American
tribes traditionally and
culturally affiliated with the
project area that have
requested consultation:
Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria
iii Brush Creek Minor Subdivision
[PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
Brush Creek Minor Subdivision IS/MND
1 Brush Creek Minor Subdivison
BRUSH CREEK MINOR SUBDIVISION
CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND INITIAL STUDY
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE #
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3
1.1. PURPOSE AND INTENT .................................................................................................................................................. 3
1.2. PUBLIC REVIEW ........................................................................................................................................................... 4
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................................... 5
2.1. PROJECT SETTING ........................................................................................................................................................ 5
2.2. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ....................................................................................................................................... 5
2.3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................................................. 5
3. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ........................................................................ 11 I. AESTHETICS ................................................................................................................................................................... 12 II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES ............................................................................................................. 13 III. AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................................................................................... 14 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................................................................ 18 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................................. 20 VI. ENERGY ........................................................................................................................................................................ 22 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ............................................................................................................................................... 23 VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ............................................................................................................................. 30 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ........................................................................................................... 31 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ...................................................................................................................... 32 XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING ...................................................................................................................................... 34 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................................. 35 XIII. NOISE .......................................................................................................................................................................... 36 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING ................................................................................................................................ 38 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES ..................................................................................................................................................... 39 XVI. RECREATION ............................................................................................................................................................ 41 XVII. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC ............................................................................................................................... 41 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................................................... 43 XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ..................................................................................................................... 44 XX. WILDFIRE .................................................................................................................................................................... 45 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ...................................................................................................... 47
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: REGIONAL LOCATION ........................................................................................................................................ 6 FIGURE 2: PROJECT VICINITY .............................................................................................................................................. 7 FIGURE 3: GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS ................................................................................................. 8 FIGURE 4: ZONING DESIGNATION ....................................................................................................................................... 9 FIGURE 5: SITE PLAN ............................................................................................................................................................ 10 Brush Creek Minor Subdivision IS/MND
2 Brush Creek Minor Subdivison
Brush Creek Minor Subdivision IS/MND
3 Brush Creek Minor Subdivison
INTRODUCTION
1.1. PURPOSE AND INTENT
This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is being prepared for the Brush Creek Minor Subdivision project that includes the annexation, general plan amendment, prezone and 4 lot subdivision with a remainder parcel . Th is initial study and mitigated negative declaration have been prepared by Hogan Land Services, Inc., as a third-party agent, in full accordance with the procedural and substantive requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines and the City of Santa Rosa’s environmental policies and procedures.
This IS/MND is intended to inform City decisionmakers, res ponsible agencies, interested parties and the general public of the proposed project and its potential environmental effects. This IS/MND is also intended to provide the CEQA-required environmental documents for all city, regional and state approvals or permits that might be required to implement the proposed project.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(c) lists the following purposes of an Initial Study:
1. Provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a Negative Declaration.
2. Enable an Applicant or Lead Agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby possibly enabling the project to qualify for a Negative Declaration.
3. Assist in the preparation of an EIR, if one is required.
4. Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project.
5. Provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a Negative Declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
6. Eliminate unnecessary EIRs.
7. Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project.
The City of Santa Rosa as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine the level of environmental review necessary for the proposed project. Consistent with Section 15070(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, the Initial Study identified potentially-significant effects, but revisions in the Project made by or agreed to by the applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point w here clearly no significant effect would occur and there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the City of Santa Rosa, that the Project as revised and with implementation of identified mitigation measures would have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, as the lead agency, the City of Santa Rosa has determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate level of environmental review.
Brush Creek Minor Subdivision IS/MND
4 Brush Creek Minor Subdivison
1.2. PUBLIC REVIEW
In accordance with CEQA and the state CEQA Guidelines, a 30 -day public review period for the project commenced on June 3, 2022, and will conclude on July 4, 2022. This IS/MND has been distributed to interested or involved public agencies, organizations, and private individuals for review. In addition, the IS/MND has been made available for general public review at the following location:
City of Santa Rosa
Planning & Economic Development
100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Hours: 8:00 am to 5pm, Monday – Thursday and Friday 8 am to 12 pm.
And on the City’s website at:
https://srcity.org/249/Planning-Economic-Development
During the public review period, the public will have an opportunity to provide written comments on the information contained within this IS/MND.
In reviewing the IS/MND and as articulated in Section 15204(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, affected public agencies and interested members of the public should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing potential impacts on the envir onment from the proposed project, and ways in which the significant effects of the project are can be avoided or mitigated. Pursuant to Section 15204(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, public agencies and persons should focus on the proposed finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. If a public agency or person believes that the proposed project may have a significant effect, they should:
1. Identify the specific effect;
2. Explain why they believe the effect would occur; and
3. Explain why they believe the effect would be significant.
Finally, per Section 105204(c), reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supporte d by facts.
Comments on the IS/MND should be submitted in writing and received by the City of Santa Rosa prior to the end of the 30-day public review period on August 2, 2021. Written comments should be submitted to:
Kristinae Toomians
City of Santa Rosa
Planning & Economic Development
100 Santa Rosa Ave, Room 3
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Phone: (707) 543-4692
Email: [email protected]
Brush Creek Minor Subdivision IS/MND
5 Brush Creek Minor Subdivison
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1. PROJECT SETTING
The project site is located on 2210, 2200 Brush Creek Road, and 0 Bridgewood Drive, in the City of Santa Rosa near the intersection of Brush Creek Road and Lyric Lane, approximately 350 feet north of Fountaingrove Parkway/Montecito Boulevard. The parcels are commonly referred to as Assessor Parcel No. 182-050-004, -005, & -014.
The site is currently a County island within the unincorporated area of Sonoma County. The parcels are surrounded by lots within City jurisdiction, and Rincon Creek is located along the eastern boundary of the County island. The parcels to the nor th and west are within the Very Low Density Residential land use designation, the parcels to the south are designated Medium Density and Low Density Residential, and the parcels to the east are designated Low Density Residential.
2.2. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Although the properties are currently within the unincorporated area of the County, t he City of Santa Rosa’s General Plan designates them as Very Low Density Residential with a development from 0.2 to
2.0 units per gross acre (i.e., 0.5 to 5.0 acres per unit). This density range accommodates rural and hillside developments within the UGB and is intended for single family detached units, but clustered single family attached and multifamily may be permitted.
Because the parcels are in the unincorporated area of the County, they do not have a City zoning district.
2.3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project proposes to annex the County island into the City of Santa Rosa. With the annexations, the applicant requests a General Plan Amendment for 2210 Brush Creek Drive (APN 182-050-004) from Very Low Density Residential to Low Density Residential and to prezone the property to R-1-6 Single Family Residential. Additionally, the project proposes to split this 1.66-acre parcel and develop 4 new residential lots and a remainder parcel that would include the established 1,470 square foot single -family residence.
A 360-square foot accessory structure would exist on Lot 2. The parcels would range in size from 9,665 to 16,702 square feet. The average lot size is 13,260 square feet . Lot 1 is currently access ed off Brush Creek Road, and Lots 2-5 would be accessed from Lyric Lane. The remainder of the property consists of trees and vegetation.
Assessor’s Parcels 182 -050-005 & -014 (2210 Brush Creek Road and 0 Bridgewood Drive) would be prezoned to Rural Residential, which is consistent with the current General Plan designation of Very Low Density Residential. No new development and no additional subdivision are proposed for these parcels.
The parcels will be included in order to eliminate an existing County island, per consultation with Sonoma LAFCO (Local Agency Formation Commission).
The lot slopes downward from Brush Creek Road to Rincon Creek at the eastern boundary . (Figure 5:
Site Plan).
Brush Creek Minor Subdivision IS/MND
6 Brush Creek Minor Subdivison
FIGURE 1: REGIONAL LOCATION
7 Brush Creek Minor Subdivison
FIGURE 2: PROJECT VICINITY
8 Brush Creek Minor Subdivison
FIGURE 3: GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
9 Brush Creek Minor Subdivison
FIGURE 4: ZONING DESIGNATION
10 Brush Creek Minor Subdivison
FIGURE 5: SITE PLAN
11 Brush Creek Minor Subdivison
3. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, potentially involving at least one impact that requires mitigation to be reduced to a level of “Less Than Significant” as indicated by the Environmental Checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agriculture and
Forestry Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Hazards and
Hazardous Materials
Hydrology Land Use Planning Mineral Resources
Noise Population/Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Resources
Utilities/Service
Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of
Significance
The following Environmental Checklist is used to describe the impacts of the proposed project, as detailed in the project description and the attached plans. Potential environmental impacts are classified as follows:
Potentially Significant Impact: An environmental impact that could be significant and for which no feasible mitigation is known. If any potentially significant impacts are identified in this Checklist, an Environmental Impact report (EIR) must be prepared.
Less Than Significant with Mitigatio n Incorporated: An environmental impact that requires the incorporation of mitigation measures to reduce that impact to a less-than-significant level.
Less Than Significant Impact: An environmental impact may occur; however, the impact would not be considered significant based on CEQA environmental standards.
No Impact: No environmental impacts would occur.
12 Brush Creek Minor Subdivison
I. AESTHETICS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare, whi ch would adversely affect day
or nighttime views in the area?
Setting: The project site is located near the intersection of Fountaingrove Parkway/ Montecito Boulevard. The site is not within any Scenic Resources. The surrounding neighborhood includes single family dwelling units to the north, south, east, and west.
The site is overgrown with dense stands of trees along the property lines, especially the South. Many of the trees are non -native, such as the Eucalyptus and Privets. The site also consists of Coast Live Oaks, Valley Oaks, and Coastal Redwood. Several large Redwood trees grow along the northern property line (Lyric Lane).
Landscaping for the project will include planting Coast Live Oaks or Valley Oaks to be planted on each proposed lot. Street landscaping will include street trees and sidewalks.
I. a) Less than Significant Impact. The project site is not located within or along a designated scenic corridor nor does it contain scenic resources, nor does the project affect a scenic vista or a scenic highway.
I. b) Less than Significant Impact. Trees along the proposed property lines will be affected from water and storm drain trenching. An arborist report and tree inventory were conducted by David Fowler on November 12, 2020, recommending that the trees along the property line should be removed for safety.
The report recommends three 24” box Coast Live Oaks or Valley Oaks be planted on each proposed lot. The project will not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting scenic resources and will result in less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
I. c) Less than Significant Impact. The properties are surrounded by single family dwelling units to the north, south, east, and west. The existing 1,470 SF single family dwelling unit at 2210 Brush Creek Road will remain on the re mainder parcel , which is visible from Brush Creek Road , meets the objectives of the City’s Design Guidelines pertaining to neighborhood design and single -family residential development. The dwelling unit is to remain along with a 360 SF accessory structure on Lot 2. Locations of the proposed dwelling units are to be determined. The arborist report indicates
13 Brush Creek Minor Subdivison
large Redwood trees along the northern boundary line to remain to maintain privacy along Lyric Lane.
The project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site, resulting in a less than significant impact.
I. d) Less than Significant Impact. The City of Santa Rosa Zoning Code (Code Section 20 -30.080) requires that lighting fixtures be shielded or recessed to reduce light bleed to adjoining properties, and that each light fixture be directed downward and away from adjoining properties and public rights-of- way, so that no on-site light fixture directly illuminates an area off the site. The proposed development project at 2210 Brush Creek Road shall demonstrate that lighting has been designed to adequately illuminate only the property to ensure compliance with City requirements. Compliance with these requirements will ensure that the project will not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area and therefore, will not result in any significant impacts.
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland to non -agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
14 Brush Creek Minor Subdivison
Setting: The site has not bee n cultivated or used for active farming. The property is designated as “Urban and Build-Up Land” by California Department of Conservation Division of Land Resources Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (2012).
II. a, e) No Impact. The project site is not designated Prime Farmland, unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Significance on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The project site is located within the Santa Rosa’s Urban Growth Boundary and zoned for residential development. Upon annexation, the site would b e designated within the R-1-6 Single Family Residential zoning district. Adjacent properties to the south are within Sonoma County jurisdiction and zoned RR. The parcels to the north are within City of Santa Rosa jurisdiction and within a PD district. All adjacent parcels are currently developed residential uses with limited agricultural capability. The project is expected to have no impact on conver sion of farmland or existing agricultural uses.
II. b) No Impact. The project site is not under a Williamson Act contract. The proposed subdivision would designate the lots for low density single family residential and would not be eligible for a Williamson Act Contract. Therefore, the project would not impact existing agric ultural zoning or Williamson Act contract for the property.
II. c - d) No Impact. The site is in an urban area that is projected for development with 45 tagged trees on-site and no forest resources on or near the site. Therefore, the project would have no impact to forest resources.
III. AIR QUALITY
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non -
attainment under an applicable federal
or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
15 Brush Creek Minor Subdivison
Setting: The project site is located in the City of Santa Rosa, within the boundaries of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is t he regional agency with regulatory authority over stationary sources in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, while the California Air Resources Board (CAR) has regulatory authority over mobile sources such as construction equipment, trucks, and automobiles throughout the state. The BAAQMD has the primary responsibility to meet and maintain the state and federal ambient air quality standards in the Bay Area.
The Bay Area meets all ambient air quality standards for all state standards except ground-level ozone, respirable particulate matter (PM10) and find particulate matter ( PM2.5) as the Air basin has been in attainment since 1998. The air basin meets all other ambient air quality standards.
High ozone levels are caused by the cumulative emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). These precursor pollutants react under certain meteorological conditions to form high ozone levels. Controlling the emissions of these precursor pollutants is the focus of the Bay Area’s attempts to reduce ozone levels. The highest ozone levels in the Bay Area occur in the eastern and southern inland valleys that are downwind of air pollutant sources. High ozone levels aggravate respiratory an d cardiovascular diseases, reduce lung function, and increase coughing and chest discomfort.
Particulate matter is another problematic air pollutant of the Bay Area. Particulate matter is assessed and measured in terms of respirable particulate matter or particles that have a diameter of 10 micrometers or less ( PM10) and fine particulate matter where particles have a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5). Elevated concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 are the result of both region- wide (or cumulative) emi ssions and localized emissions. High particulate matter levels aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reduce lung function, increase mortality (e.g., lung cancer), and result in reduced lung function growth in children.
Toxic air contaminants or TACs are a broad class of compounds known to cause morbidity or mortality (usually because they cause cancer) and include, but are not limited to, the criteria air pollutants. TACs are found in ambient air, especially in urban areas, and are caused by i ndustry, agriculture, and fuel combustion. TACs are typically found in low concentrations, even near their source (e.g., diesel particulate matter [DPM] near a freeway). Because chronic exposure can result in adverse health effects, TACs are regulated at the regional, State, and Federal level.
Diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in urban air and is estimated to represent about three-quarters of the cancer risk from TACs (based on the Bay Area average). According to the California Air Resources Board (CAR B), diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of gases, vapors, and fine particles.
This complexity makes the evaluation of health effects of diesel exhaust a complex scientific issue.
Some of the chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde, have been previously identified as TACs by the CARB, and are listed as carcinogens either under the State's Proposition 65 or under the Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants programs.
Regulatory Environment
CARB has adopted and implemented a numbe r of regulations for stationary and mobile sources to reduce emissions of DPM. Several of these regulatory programs affect medium and heavy-duty diesel trucks that represent the bulk of DPM emissions from California highways. CARB regulations require on-road diesel trucks to be retrofitted with particulate matter controls or replaced to meet 2010 or later engine standards that have much lower DPM and PM2.5 emissions. This regulation will substantially reduce these emissions between 2013 and 2023. While new trucks and buses will meet strict federal standards, this measure is intended to accelerate the rate at which the fleet either turns over so there
16 Brush Creek Minor Subdivison
are more cleaner vehicles on the road or is retrofitted to meet similar standards. With this regulation, older, more polluting trucks would be removed from the roads sooner.
In June 2010, the BAAQMD’s Board of Directors adopted CEQA thresholds of significance and an update of their CEQA Guidelines. These thresholds were designed to establish the level at which BAAQMD believed air pollution emissions will cause significant environmental impacts under the CEQA and were posted on BAAQMD’s website and included in the Air District’s updated CEQA Guidelines (BAAQMD 2017a). The significance thresholds identified by BAAQMD, as shown below in Table III-1, represent an appropriate approach and are used as a guideline in this analysis.
The City of Santa Rosa’s Open Space and Conservation Element contains policies meant to improve and maintain air quality and impacts to the community from air pollution. Specific policies applicable to Project include:
OSC-J-1 Review all new construction projects and require dust abatement actions as contained in the CEQA Handbook of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District OSC-J-3 Reduce particulate matter emissions from wood burning appliances through implementation of the city’s Wood Burning Appliance code.
17 Brush Creek Minor Subdivison
Consistent with the Santa Rosa 2035 General Plan recommendations, the Project shall be required to include the City’s dust abatement conditions of approval and/or the BAAQMD’s dust abatement mitigations. No wood burning fireplaces are allowed in new construction.
III. a) Less than Significant. The Bay Area is considered a non-attainment area for ground-level ozone and PM2.5 under both the Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act. The area is also considered non-attainment for PM10 under the California Clean Air Act, but not the Federal act. The area has attained both State and Federal ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide. As part of an effort to attain and maintain ambient air quality standards for ozone and PM10, the BAAQMD has established thresholds of significance for these air pollutants and their precursors. The main purpose of an air quality plan is to bring the area into compliance with the requirements of federal and state air quality standards. To bring the San Francisco Bay Area region into attainment, the BAAQMD developed the 2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan (BAAQMD 2017b). BAAQMD’s 2 017 Clean Air plan focuses on protecting public health and protecting the climate. The project will not conflict with the applicable air quality plan, therefore there will be no impact.
III. b, c) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated . The properties at 2200 Brush Creek Road and 0 Bridgewood Drive do not include any proposed development, and therefore will have no impact. The project at 2210 Brush Creek Road will include construction activities that will result in minimal short-term air quality impacts from combustion emissions and fugitive dust emissions that would not be expected to result in adverse air quality impacts. With the implementation of standard city conditions related to dust control measures stemming from project constr uction activities, the potential for construction -period dust (particulate matter) impacts would be less than significant with mitigation measures.
Mitigation Measure:
Implement Bay Area Air Quality Management District construction management standards during all on-and-off site construction activities.
• Water all active construction areas at least twice daily and more often during windy periods to prevent visible dust from leaving the site; active areas adjacent to windy periods; active areas adjacent to existing land uses shall be kept damp at all times or shall be treated with non-toxic stabilizers or dust palliatives.
• Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard.
• Install wheel washers for all existing trucks or wash off the tires or tracks of all truc ks and equipment before leaving the site.
• Pave, apply water at least three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas.
• Sweep daily (or more often if necessary) to prevent visible dust from leaving the site (preferably with w ater sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites; water sweepers shall vacuum up excess water to avoid runoff -related impacts to water quality.
• Sweep streets daily, or more often if necessary (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets.
III. d) Less than Significant Impact. The project construction and operation at 2210 Brush Creek Road will not generate any permanent source of new odors or subject sensitive receptors to new significant permanent odors. During construction, odors will be generated by construction
18 Brush Creek Minor Subdivison
equipment; these odors will be present only temporarily during construction. Therefore, the project will result in less than significant impacts under criterion.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the Ca. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife or
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
Ca. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally-protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of nativ e wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
19 Brush Creek Minor Subdivison
Setting: A complete biological resources report was prepared for the project by Sol Ecology on November 19, 2020. This report and inventory include results of plant communities, special status plant and wildlife species, presence of essential habitat elements for special status plant or wildlife species, and the presence of wetland and non -wetland waters. A n arborist’s report was prepared by David Fowler on November 12, 2020, including a tree inventory.
Sol Ecology biologists conducted a biological survey on September 24, 2020, identifying all plant and wildlife species, and vegetation communities within the Study Area. The biologist’s assessments of impacts under CEQA were based on changes resulting from the project relative to the existing conditions within the Study Area.
IV. a, b, c) Less than Significant. There are sensitive natural communities within the Project Study Area, including Rincon Creek and associated riparian mixed hardwood habitat. The parcel is within the Riparian Corridor Combining Zone (RC 50/25) and subject to a minimum streamside conservation area of 50 feet from the creek’s top of bank, and 30 feet outward from the two ephemeral streams. Project activities are prohibited within any stream channel, riparian habitat, or streamside conservation area. No project activities are proposed to occur within the streamside conservation area, therefore there is no significant impact resulting from the project. There are no other sensitive natural communities within the project area.
Congested-headed hayfield tarplant, a special status species, has a low potential for occurrence within the project area. There are no documented occurrences of congested-headed hayfield tarplant within the Project, and no congested-headed hayfield tarplant was observed during the biologist’s site visit, which took place during the special status plant’s blooming period. It is unlikely that congested- headed hayfield tarplant occurs within the project area given that the nearby occurrences are associated with vernal pool habitat. Impacts to special status plant species is less than significant given that no special status plants were observed.
California giant salamander, and foothill yellow-legged frog (FYLF), two special status amphibians, have the potential to be present in the study area. Western Pond Turtle (WPT) also has the potential to be present. These species are most likely to occur within Rincon Creek and the riparian mixed hardwood habitat and thus are not likely to be affected by the proposed project.
IV. d) Less than Significant with Mitigation. Migratory nesting birds in grassland and riparian areas may potentially be impacted by the proposed project at 2210 Brush Creek Road if activities occur during the nesting season, February 1 through August 31. Noise, dust, or visual disturbances may result in nest abandonment or mortality to eggs and chicks. To avoid significant impacts, mitigation measures are recommended.
There are 4 bat species that have the potential to occur within the project area. These species may roost in the trees or in the attic of the existing residential house on site. Removal of bat roost habitat may result in significant impacts. To avoid significant impacts, prior to tree removal and/or building demolition or alteration mitigation measures are recommended.
Mitigation Measures:
20 Brush Creek Minor Subdivison
1. All construction activities should be performed outside the migratory nesting season between September 1 and January 31 to avoid significant impact Proposed project activities shall not occur during nesting season, February 1 through August 31.
2. If work must be performed during nesting season, a pre-construction nesting bird survey should be performed in all areas within 250 feet of proposed activities.
3. If nests are found, an appropriately sized no-disturbance buffer should be placed around the nest directed by the qualified biologist conducting the survey. Buffers should remain in place until all young have fledged, or the biologist has confirmed that the nest has been naturally predated.
4. Prior to activities in areas where bat roosts may be present, a qualified bat biologist shall perform a pre-construction roost survey (dusk emergence survey) no more than 10 days prior to the start of activities with potential to disturb bats or their habitat during the maternity season between April and September to avoid potential impacts to active maternity sties and/or pregnant females.
5. If no maternity roost is found, any felled trees should be left overnight prior to removal from the site or on-site chipping to allow any solitary bats to exit the roost.
IV. e) No Impact. The project does not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
IV. f) No Impact . The project does not conflict with any adopted habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans within the City of Santa Rosa. There are also no approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans related to or affected by this project.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource
as defined in Pub. Res. Code §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred o utside of formal
cemeteries?
Setting: An Archaeological Survey Report was conducted by Alta Archaeological Consulting in September 2020 to identify any cultural resources within the project area. A revision was conducted in April 2022 at the request of the Federated Indians of the Graton Rancheria. The project is located within
21 Brush Creek Minor Subdivison
the foothills of the Sonoma Mountains, known as Rincon Valley. The property is located west of Rincon Creek, adjacent to the eastern boundary of the parcel. Rincon Creek is a narrow drainage that bisects housing parcels on either side of the banks. Native riverine vegetation is extant at the edge of the corridor, including Bay trees. Prehistoric populations are known to have exploited the plant and animal resources along the creek system.
V. a) No Impact. The existing structure at 2210 Brush Creek R oad is not proposed to be altered or removed with the development project. The structure will remain on the remainder parcel of the proposed subdivision. A review of historic registers and inventories indicate that no historical resources are present in the project area. There are no National Register listed or eligible properties located within a 0.5-mile visual area of the project area. Therefore, no historic resources are impacted.
V. b & c) No Impact. The archaeological site and survey maps revealed 17 cultural resource studies that have been performed within a 0.5 miles radius of the project area. The project area had been previously surveyed for archaeological reasons in 1991. The survey did not identify any cultural resources, unique paleontological resources, or unique geologic features. Therefore, there is no impact.
V. d) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated . The proximity to Rincon Creek suggests the project area may have been favorable to human activity. The proposed project is not expected to have an adverse effect on cultural resources; however, mitigation measures are recommended to ensure that cultural resources are not adversely affected by the proposed project.
Mitigation Measures:
Unanticipated subsurface archaeological finds in the Sonoma County are common; indeed, the proximity to Rincon Creek suggests the project area may have been favorable to human activity.
Therefore, the following recommendations are provided as mitigation to ensure that cultural resources are not adversely affected by the proposed project. The project as presently designed is not expected to have an adverse effect on cultural resources. The project should be allowed to proceed given the following recommendations.
1. Tribal Monitoring - Tribal monitoring shall be instituted for ground -disturbing activities associated with the project’s Area of Potential Effect (APE). Monitoring shall be performed by a Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (FIGR) tribal monitor. The tribal monitor will consist of monitoring the excavation, grading, trenching and other earth-moving processes. In the event cultural resources are discovered during grading or other construction activities, work shall immediately be halted within the vicinity of the find. The Northwest Information Center shall be notified. A qualified archeologist shall be consulted for an on -site evaluation. Additional mitigation may be required by the City per the Archeologist’s recommendations.
2. Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources - If previously unidentified cultural resources are encountered during project implementation, avoid altering the materi als and their stratigraphic context. A qualified professional archaeologist should be contacted to evaluate the situation. Project personnel should not collect cultural resources. Prehistoric resources include, but are not limited to, chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars, pestles, and dark friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, heat -affected rock, or human burials. Historic resources include stone or abode foundations or walls; structures and remains with square nails; and refuse deposits or bottle dumps, often located in old wells or privies.
3. Encountering Native American Remains- Although unlikely, if human remains are encountered, all work must stop in the immediate vicinity of the discovered remains and the County Coroner and a qualified archaeologist must be notified immediately so that an evaluation can be performed. If the remains are deemed to be Native American and prehistoric, the Native
22 Brush Creek Minor Subdivison
American Heritage Commission must be contacted by the Coroner so that a “Most Like ly Descendant” can be designated and further recommendations regarding treatment of the remains is provided.
VI. ENERGY
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in a potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful
inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources
during project construction or
operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or
local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
Setting: Most of the energy consumed in Santa Rosa is produced from traditional sources and delivered to the city through e stablished distribution networks. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) provides electrical services and natural gas within the Urban Growth Boundary, and gasoline and other petroleum products are sold through private retailers throughout the city. City of Santa Rosa adopted an all-electric “reach code” (Ord. 2019-019). Natural gas connections and appliances for new dwelling units are not allowed for building permit applications submitted after January 1, 2020.
New buildings, including homes, constructed in California must comply with the standards contained in Title 20, Public Utilities and Energy, and Title 24, Building Standards Code, of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). These efficiency standards apply to new construction of both re sidential and nonresidential buildings, and both 20 CCR and 24 CCR regulate energy consumed for heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating, and lighting. The building efficiency standards are enforced through the local building permit process.
The 2019 update to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards focuses on several key areas to improve the energy efficiency of newly constructed buildings and additions and alterations to existing buildings.
The most significant efficiency improvements to the reside ntial Standards include improvements for attics, walls, water heating, and lighting. Installation of photovoltaic systems is now mandatory for new dwelling units.
In 2010, the City adopted CALGreen Tier 1 standards which apply to all new buildings and to additions and alterations of residential and non-residential buildings. The Tier 1 standards exceed the basic level of requirements of the CALGreen Building Code. Th is program supports the City’s efforts to reduce
23 Brush Creek Minor Subdivison
greenhouse gases to reach the local, regional, and state targets outlined in the City’s Climate Action Plan. The City adopted CAP in 2012 and a Municipal Climate Action Plan (MCAP) in 2013. The CAP examines community-wide sources of GHG emissions and outlines strategies for reducing these emissions. The MCAP addresses greenhouse gas emissions from the City’s municipal operations. In 2019, the City adopted the all-electric reach code. CALGreen Tier 1 was adopted except for the energy code section.
The City of Santa Rosa General Plan addresses energy use and efficiency in all elements by including goals and policies for improving energy efficiency and reducing waste. The General Plan seeks to reduce energy cons umption through minimizing vehicle trips and approving land use patterns that support increased density in areas where there is infrastructure to support it, increased opportunities for transit, pedestrians, bicycles, and through green building and land development conservation strategies.
VI. a, b) Less than Significant Impact. Project construction at 2210 Brush Creek Road will occur for approximately 15 months and will consume energy through the operation of heavy off-road equipment, trucks, and worker v ehicle traffic. Electricity will be used to power tools, lighting, and electric machinery. Operation of the 4 residences will consume electricity, water, and natural gas. Electricity and natural gas will be used for lighting, heating, and appliances.
The project will be required to comply with the applicable measures identified in the CAP New Construction Checklist including policies related to energy efficiency as a standard condition of approval. Details on CAP compliance for construction and operat ion of the project are provided in Section VII Greenhouse Gases. Compliance with the City of Santa Rosa CAP, including but not limited to compliance with the City’s CalGreen Tier 1 Standards and California Energy requirements under Title 24 and installation of real-time energy monitors will ensure the Project will not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy during construction and operation of the Project.
The project must comply with California requirements under Title 20 an d Title 24 will require the compliance with state building energy requirements. These requirements are enforced during the City’s permit approval and will reduce impacts on wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy during operation of the project. Therefore, impacts related to wasteful, unnecessary energy consumption and compliance with renewable or energy efficiency plans will be less than significant.
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
24 Brush Creek Minor Subdivison
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault?
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as
a result of the project, and potent ially
result in on - or off -site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or
collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined by
the Uniform Building Code, creating
substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
Setting: PJC & Associates c onducted a geotechnical investigation in January 2021. The project is located in the Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province of California. This province is characterized by northwest trending topographic and geologic features. The structure of the northern Coast Ranges region is complex due to the continuous tectonic deformation.
Geologic structures in the region are primarily controlled by northwest trending faults. There are no known active faults passing through the site. The site is not located in the Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Studies zone. The closest potentially active fault is the Rodgers Creek, approximately 2 miles to the southwest. The site is located within a zone of high seismic activity.
VII. a.i.) Less than Significant Impact . There are no known active fault passes through the site. The site is not located in the Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Studies Zone. PJC & Associat es determined that the three closes potentially active faults to the site to be Rodgers Creek, Maacama, and West Napa faults. The Rodgers Creek fault is located two miles to the southwest, the Maacama fault is located seven miles north, and the West Napa fault is located 17 miles southeast of the site.
Rupture of the ground surface is expected to occur along known active fault traces. No evidence of existing faults or previous ground displacement on the site due to fault movement has been indicated.
Therefore, the likelihood of the ground rupture at the site due to faulting is considered to be low.
25 Brush Creek Minor Subdivison
VII. a.ii.) Less than Significant Impact. The site is located within a zone of high seismic activity related to active faults that transverse through the surrounding region. Future damaging earthquakes could occur on any of these fault systems during the lifetime of the proposed project. The intensity of ground shaking at the site will depend upon the distance to the causative earthqu ake epicenter, the magnitude of the shock, the response characteristics of the underlying earth materials and the quality of construction.
The site has been subjected in the past to ground shaking by earthquakes on the active fault systems that travers the region. It is believed that earthquakes with significant ground shaking will occur in the region within the next several decades. Therefore, the subject site is expected to be subjected to strong ground shaking during the design life of the project. The City building codes would require the project to be designed and constructed in accordance with current standards for earthquake -resistant construction. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.
VII. a.iii.) Less than Significant Impact. PJC & Associates drilled a borehole with a depth of 50.5 feet below the existing ground surface to assess the liquefaction potential at the site. No loose, saturated, granular soil stratums were revealed within 50.5 feet of the ground surface at the site. The su bsurface conditions consisted primarily of fine-grained soils, and the granular deposit that was encountered was dense and contained significant fines contents. Therefore, it is judged that the risk of soil liquefaction at the site is low and a less than significant impact.
VII. a.iv.) Less than Significant Impact. The eastern portion of the site, within proposed lot 4, is bordered to the east by the banks of Rincon Creek. The banks of the creek are approximately ten feet tall, heavily vegetated, and appea red relatively stable, with no signs of major erosional sloughing or slumping. Additionally, the proposed riparian setback for structures adjacent to the creek banks is 80 feet, a sufficient setback distance to avoid significant distress due to potential seismically induced creek bank instability. Therefore, the potential for landslides present a less than significant impact on the site.
VII. b) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Site grading at 2210 Brush Creek Road is anticipated to consist of cuts and fills on the order of feet and less to achieve the desired pad grades and to provide adequate gradients for site drainage. Mitigation measures are described below:
Mitigation Measure:
1. Earthwork and Grading- Select Import Building Pads
Stripping- Structural areas should be stripped of the surface vegetation, old fills, debris, underground utilities, etc. These materials should be moved off site; some of them, if suitable could be stockpiled for later use in landscape areas. If underground utilities pass through the site, we recommend that these utilities be removed in their entirety or rerouted where they exist outside an imaginary plane sloped one horizontal to one vertical (1H:1V) from the outside bottom edge of the nearest foundation element. Voids left from the removal of utilities or other obstructions should be replaced with compacted engineered fill under the observation of the project geotechnical engineer. All wells, septic systems, and leach fields should be abandoned and plugged according to regulations set forth by the Sonoma County Health Department. Excavation and Compaction- Following site stripping, areas to receive fill should be prepared by removing the unsuitable surface and near surface soils and exposing firm native soils, as determined by the geotechnical engineer in the field during construction. Areas that are scheduled to receive fill should be scarified to a minimum depth of eight inches, moisture conditioned to at least three percent over
26 Brush Creek Minor Subdivison
optimum moisture content, and recompacted to at least 90 percent of relative maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D-1557 test procedures.
All fill material should be placed and compacted in accordance with the recommendations presented in Table VII-1 below. It is recommended that any import fill to be used on site be of a low to non-expansive nature and should meet the following criteria:
Plastic Index less than 12
Liquid Limit less than 35
Percent Soil Passing #200 Sieve between 15% and 35% Maximum Aggregate Size 4 inches
The existing on-site soils, free of organics and rocks larger than six inches in dimension, are suitable for use as compacted engineered fill. All fills should be placed in lifts no greater than eight inches in loose thickness and compacted to the general recommendations provided for engineered fill.
Table VII-1
All site preparation and fill placement should be observed by a representative of PJC.
It is important that during the stripping, subexcavation and grading/scarifying processes, a representative from PJC & Associates be present to observe whether any undesirable material is encountered in the construction area.
Generally, grading is most economically performed during the summer months when on-site soils are usually dry of optimum moisture content. Delays should be anticipated in site grading performed during the rainy season or early spring due to excessive moisture in the on-site soils. Special and relatively expensive construction procedures should be anticipated if grading must be completed during the winter and early spring.
Cut and fill slopes should be no greater than the two horizontal to one vertical (2H:1V). Slopes steeper than 2H:1V should be retained. Disturbed slopes should be planted with deep rooted groundcover to control erosion.
2. Foundations: Drilled Cast-In-Place Piers
Vertical Loads- The structures may be supported by a drilled, concrete cast-in-place pier and grade beam foundation system extending through the weak and compressible soils, zone of significant moisture variation, and into the underlying firm native soils.
The drilled piers should have a minimum diameter of 12 inches and be spaced at least three pier diameters center to center. The piers will derive their support through
27 Brush Creek Minor Subdivison
peripheral friction. Perimeter and interior piers should extend at least nine feet below the finish ground surface and at least six feet into firm native soils. The piers should be reinforced and designed by the project structural engineer. Perimeter and interior peris supporting continuous wall loads should be tied together with grade beams. The grade beams should be designed to span between the piers in accordance with structural requirements.
The portion of the piers extending at least three feet beneath the finished ground surface may be designed using an allowable dead plus live skin friction of 600 pounds per square foot (psf). This value may be increased by one-third for short duration wind and seismic loads. End bearing should be neglected because of difficult in cleaning out small diameter pier holes and the uncertainty of mobilizing skin friction and end bearing simultaneously. A value equal to one-half the downward capacity of the pier may be used to resist uplift forces. An uplift swelling pressure of 1500 psf should be used for the design of the grade beam.
Lateral Loads- Lateral loads resulting from wind or earthquake can be resisted by the pier through a combination of cantilever action and passive resistance of the soils surrounding the pier. A passive equivalent fluid pressure of 250 psf/ft acting on two pier diameters should be used. The upper three feet of soil should be neglected for passive resistance.
Settlement- The maximum and differential settlements of the piers is estimated to be small and within tolerable limits. If groundwater is encountered, it may be necessary to de-water the holes and/or place concrete by the tremie method. If caving soils are encountered, it may be necessary to case the holes.
3. Foundations: Conventional Spread Footings
Vertical Loads- Provided the earthwork and grading recommendations for the select import building pads are performed, the structures may be adequately supported by conventional spread footings extending at least 12 inches into imported, non-expansive compacted engineered fill. All footings should be reinforced. The recommended soil bearing pressures, depths of embedment and minimum width of spread footings are presented in Table VII-2 below.
Table VII-2
Lateral Loads- Resistance to lateral forces may be computed by using friction or passive pressure. A friction factor of 0.35 is considered appropriate between the bottom of the concrete structures and engineered fill. A passive pressure equivalent to that exerted by a fluid weighing 350 pounds per square foot per foot of depth (psf/ft) is recommended. Unless restrained at the surface, the upper six inches should be neglected for passive resistance.
28 Brush Creek Minor Subdivison
Footing concrete should be placed neat against engineered fill. Footing excavations should not be allowed to dry before placing concrete. If shrinkage cracks appear in the footing excavations, the soil should be thoroughly moistened to close all cracks prior to concrete placement.
Settlement- Total settlement of individual foundations will vary depending on the width of the foundation and the actual load supported. Foundation settlements have been estimated based on the bearing values provided. Maximum settlements of shallow foundations designed and constructed in accordance with the preceding recommendations are estimated to be less than one footings are expected to be less than one-half of one inch. The majority of the settlement is expected to occur during construction and placement of dead loads.
4. Slab-On-Grade
All interior slabs-on-grade should be constructed entirely on 30-inch-thick blanket of imported, non-expansive compacted, engineered fill prepared in accordance with the earthwork and grading recommendation for select import building pads contained in this report. All slabs should be supported on at least six inches of clean gravel or crushed rock to provide a capillary moisture break and provide uniform support for the slab. The rock should be graded so that 100 percent passes the one-inch sieve, and no more than five percent passes the No. 4 sieve.
PJC & Associates recommend that the gravel be placed as soon as possible after compaction of the subgrade to prevent drying of the subgrade soils. If the subgrade is allowed to dry out prior to slab-on-grade construction, the subgrade soils should be moisture conditioned by sprinkling prior to concrete placement.
The slabs should be at least 5 inches thick and designed and reinforced as determined by the project structural engineer. Special care should be taken to ensure that reinforcement is placed at the slab mid-height.
For slabs-on-grade with moisture sensitive surfacing, we recommend that an impermeable membrane be placed over the rock to prevent migration of moisture vapor through the concrete slab. Furthermore, the slabs-on-grade should be provided with underslab drains to prevent hydrostatic uplift and control seepage.
5. Seismic Design
Geologic structures in the region are primarily controlled by northwest trending faults.
No known active fault passes through the site. The project site should be subjected to seismic shaking resulting from earthquakes on the active faults primarily in the Coast Ranges. For design, a site class type D, spectral accelerations of Ss of 2.524 g and S1 of 0.964 g are recommended.
6. Utility Trenches
Larger earth moving equipment should be used for deeper excavations. WE expect the walls of trenches less than five feet deep, excavated into engineered fill or native soils, to remain in a near vertical configuration during construction provided no equipment or excavated soil surcharges are located near the top of the exaction. Where trenches extend deeper than five feet, the excavation may become unstable. All trenches
29 Brush Creek Minor Subdivison
regardless of depth, should be evaluated to monitor stability prior to personnel entering the trenches. Shoring or sloping of any deep trench wall may be necessary to protect personnel and to provide stability. All trenches should conform to the current CAL- OSHA requirements for worker safety.
Trenches should be backfilled with granular import fill and compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density. The moisture content of compacted backfill soils should be within two percent of optimum moisture content. Jetting should not be used.
Special care should be taken in the control of utility trench backfilling in pavement areas. Poor compaction may cause excessive settlements resulting in damage to the pavements. In pavement areas, the top eight inches of trench backfill should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction.
7. Drainage
All final grades should be provided with positive gradients away from foundations to provide rapid removal of surface water runoff to an adequate discharge point. No ponding of water should be allowed on the building pads or adjacent to foundations.
The use of continuous roof gutters is recommended to reduce the possibility of soil saturation adjacent to the buildings. Downspouts from gutters should be discharged onto an impermeable surface such as pavement or into a closed conduit discharging a minimum of eight feet away from the structures.
Foundation subdrains are recommended to be placed adjacent to all foundations, except the downhill foundation. The foundation subdrains should extend at least 12 inches below the interior subgrade. The subdrain should consist of a heavy walled four-inch diameter perforated pipe. The bottom of the trench should be sloped to drain by gravity and lined with a few inches of three quarter to one-and-a-half-inch drain rock. The trench should then be backfilled to within six inches of finished surface with drain rock. The upper few inches should consist of compacted soil to reduce surface water inclusion. We recommend that a drainage filter cloth be placed between the soil and the drain rock or Class II permeable material be used in lieu of the filter fabric and drain rock. Furthermore, slabs-on-grade should be provided with underslab drains to prevent hydrostatic uplift and control seepage. Roof downspouts and surface drains must be maintained entirely separate from subdrains.
VII. c & d) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. There is a presence of weak, compressible, and expansive surface and near surface soils that are not suitable for support of fills, foundations, or slabs. Under new construction, these soils could experience significant settlement local areas of fill potentially occur on the property. Based on observations and lab testing, PJC determined that the surface and near surf ace have a moderate to very high expansion potential. Shrinking and/or swelling of these materials due to loss or increase of moisture content can cause ground movement, distress, and damage to foundations. The project at 2210 Brush Creek Road is currently in preliminary design stages. Depending on the proposed building envelopes and design concepts, the geotechnical engineer should review and if necessary, revise the recommendations accordingly. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact utilizing the following geotechnical recommendations presented in PJC & Associates’ geotechnical report as well as the current edition of the CA Building Code.
30 Brush Creek Minor Subdivison
Mitigation Measures:
1. If raised wood floors are desired in living areas, it would be necessary to extend the foundations through the zone of significant moisture variation, and into the underlying native soils. If slabs- on-grade are utilized in living areas, all structures should be supported on a 30-inch-thick blanket of imported, non-expansive compacted engineered fill.
VII. e) No Impact. The proposed project at 2210 Brush Creek Road would convey wastewater generated onsite to the existing municipal wastewater system and wastewater associated with wine production would be stored onsite and periodically transported to a landfill. Septic tanks would not be employed at the project site. Therefore, no impacts to soils due to the use of septic systems are anticipated.
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
Setting: On December 4, 2001, the Santa Rosa City Council adopted a resolution to become a member of Cities for Climate Protection (CCP), a project of the International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives (now called ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability). Since that time all eight Sonoma County municipalities and Sonoma County have become members. By becoming a member, local governments commit to completing five milestones: 1) conduct a GHG emissions analysis; 2) set a target for emissions reduction; 3) draft a local actio n plan for meeting the target; 4) implement the action plan; and 5) monitor and report on the progress. The City adopted the Climate Action Plan in 2012. A project that is in compliance with a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy (such as the City of Santa Rosa’s Climate Action Plan) would be considered as having a less than significant impact.
The BAAQMD has established screening criteria to provide lead agencies with a conservat ive indication of whether a project could result in significant GHG impact during operations (i.e., occupancy). The operational screening criterion for GHG for single family residential uses is 56 units.
This Project proposes 4 new single-family residences, well below the screening criteria.
VII. a - b) Less than Significant Impact. The project will be subject to the applicable Climate Action Plan measures:
• 1.1.1. Require new development to comply with the current provisions, as amended, of CALGreen, part 11 of the California Green Building Standards Code.
31 Brush Creek Minor Subdivison
• 1.4.1 Develop a tree inventory that identifies the types, ages, number, and locations of trees in Santa Rosa.
• 1.4.2 Implement the City’s tree preservation ordinance. • 1.4.3. Require new development to supply adequate number of street trees and private trees. • 1.5 Require new sidewalks, crosswalks, and parking lots to be made of cool paving materials with a high solar reflectivity.
Project-specific increases in GHG emissions are expected to be negligible due to the relatively small number of vehicle trips per day and increasingly stringent state building code energy conservation requirements. Additiona lly, state -mandated water efficiency measures would help minimize GHG emissions. This negligible increase does not exceed the thresholds suggested by BAAQMD and is consistent with measures from the City’s Climate Action Plan, therefore having a less than significant impact.
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the publ ic or the
environment?
e) For a project located within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project
area?
32 Brush Creek Minor Subdivison
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildland s
are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
IX. a, b) Less than Significant Impact. Hazardous materials would be used during construction at 2210 Brush Creek Road , including fuels for vehicles and equipment, and construction materials including concrete and solvents. The use of such materials is common on construction projects , and therefore a less than significant impact is expected.
Project construction activities would include the use of materials such as fuels, lubricants, paints, and solvents. Caltrans and the California Highway Patrol regulate the transportation of hazardous materials and wastes, including container types and packaging requirements, as well as licensing and training for truck operators, chemical handlers, and hazardous waste haulers. Because contractors are required to comply with laws pertaining to the handling of hazardous materials, the impacts would be less tha n significant.
IX. c- f) No Impact. The project would not be located within one -quarter mile of an existing school.
The exposure to a significant or even measurable amount of hazardous material is highly unlikely. The project is not located on a hazardous materials site compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5.
There is no indication that contamination would be mobilized or encountered during construction. The project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport. Therefore, there would be no impacts.
IX. g, h) No Impact. The site development will not interfere with any adopted emergency response or evacuation plan and will have no impacts related to emergency response impairment.
Wildland fires are of a concern particularly in expansive areas of native vegetation of brush, woodland, grassland. Upon annexation, the project site would be located within the City’s Urban Growth Boundary. The project site is located on urban land in zones designated as “Non -Fire Hazard” by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection . However, the site is adjacent to parcels zoned within the fire wildland-urban interface.
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
33 Brush Creek Minor Subdivison
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or
a lowering of the local groundwater table
level (e.g., the production rate of pre -
existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on-
or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on-
or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality?
g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding as
a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
34 Brush Creek Minor Subdivison
j) Inundation by seiche or mudflow?
Setting: The project site is located on relatively level to gently sloping topography, with the exception of the steeply sloping banks of Rincon Creek. No creeks or seasonal drainage swales pass through the site. The western bank of Rincon Creek runs along the eastern boundary of the site.
X. a) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed development project at 2210 Brush Creek Road would connect and discharge domestic waste from all buildings into the City’s wastewater collection system.
The project would not violate any City water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
Therefore, there is no impact.
X. b) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed development project at 2210 Brush Creek Road would be connected and served by the City’s water system. No subsequent effect to the groundwater is anticipated resulting from the proposed development. Therefore, less than significant impact would be anticipated.
X. c, d & e) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed development project at 2210 Brush Creek Road would not substantially alter the on-site drainage pattern or cause a significant increase in erosion or siltation on or off site, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding. The project would incorporate erosion control measures appropriate to its maximum slope to manage onsite surface drainage and erosion of onsite soils during construction and winter months (October to April). By incorporating these measures, alteration of drainage patterns or increase in erosion or siltation on or off site is expected to be a less than a significant impact.
X. f) No Impact. There are no other factors in this proposal that would otherwise substantially degrade water quality.
X. g, h, i) No Impact. The project is not within a 100- year flood hazard area or 100-year floodplain.
There are no levees or dams nearby the site.
X. j) No Impact. The project site is not located within any area that would be subject to seiche, tsunami or mudflow
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established
community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including,
but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
35 Brush Creek Minor Subdivison
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
Setting: The project is located within the unincorporated area of Sonoma County. The land use designation for the property at 2210 Brush Creek Road will be amended to Very Low Density Residential and the site will be prezoned to R-1-6 Single Family Residential. The properties at 2200 Brush Creek Road and 0 Bridgewood Drive will be prezoned to Rural Residential, co nsistent with the existing General Plan land use designation of Very Low Density Residential. The parcels are surrounded by lots within County and City jurisdiction. Parcels to the south are within Santa Rosa and zoned R-1-6, R-2, and PD. The parcels to the north and west are within Santa Rosa and zoned within a PD District. The parcels to the east are within Santa Rosa and are zoned R-1-6.
XI. a) No Impact. No aspects of the project would physically divide an established community. The project is surrounded by residentially zoned land with single family dwellings.
XI. b) No Impact. The development project at 2210 Brush Creek Road proposes to subdivide a 1.66- acre lot into 4 new parcels with a designated remainder. Each lot would be approximately 0.22 to 0.38 acres. This density range accommodates the City’s General Plan designation of Very Low Residential (0.2 to 2.0 units per gross acre).
XI. c) No Impact. There are no habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans applicable to the project area.
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan?
Setting: The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975 identifies specific areas of mineral resources in the North San Francisco Bay Region including Santa Rosa. The project is not located within one of the listed aggregate deposits in the SMARA report as shown on Santa Rosa Quadrangle.
XII. a - b) No Impact. The development of the project site at 2210 Brush Creek Road will not create an adverse impact upon locally or regionally significant resources as the City of Santa Rosa’s General Plan does not identify any locally important mineral resource locations in the vicinity of the proposed project.
36 Brush Creek Minor Subdivison
XIII. NOISE
Would the project result in:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without
the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
Setting: The project will result in short-term noise impacts related to site grading and construction activity, and local traffic . The project site is approximately 500 feet from the Fountaingrove Parkway/Montecito Boulevard intersection , a regional/arterial street in Santa Rosa . The site is surrounded by residences along Lyric Lane and Brush Creek Road.
The City of Santa Rosa’s General Plan includes t he Noise and Safety Element, which provides guidelines to achieve the goal of maintaining an acceptable community noise level. The City’s Noise Guidelines as they relate to land use compatibility are found in Table XIII-1 below.
Table XIII-1: Land Use Compatibility Standards, City of Santa Rosa General Plan
37 Brush Creek Minor Subdivison
The ambient base noise levels for residential, office, commercial, and industrial areas are established in Section 17 -16.030. The applicable ambient noise level criteria are shown below:
TABLE XIII-2: Santa Rosa Noise Ordinance Ambient Base Noise Levels Land Use Zone Daytime Level (7:00 am -
7:00 pm)
Evening Level (7:00pm -
10:00pm)
Nighttime Level
(10:00pm - 7:00am)
Single-Family
Residential (R1 and
R2)
55 dBA 50dBA 45 dBA
Multi-Family
Residential
55 dBA 55 dBA 50 dBA
Office and Commercial 60 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
Intensive Commercial 65 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA
Industrial 70 dBA 70 dBA 70 dBA
Source: Santa Rosa Noise Ordinance 17-16.030
XIII. a - b) Less than Significant. The proposed development project at 2210 Brush Creek Road could potentially generate noise in excess of standards established in the City’s Municipal Code at the nearby sensitive receptors, which unless mitigated could be substantial. Sec. 17 -16.120 of the City’s Noise Ordinance limits noise levels produced by stationary mechanical equipment to 60 dBA during daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.), to 55 dBA during evening hours (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.), and to 50 dBA at night (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) at single-family residential property lines. Typically, these noise limits do not apply to construction activities, and the “unlawful” noise statement in Section 17-16.120 does not indicate construction noise as included in these noise thresholds.
38 Brush Creek Minor Subdivison
Construction activities would occur during the daylight hours between 7 am and 7 pm on weekdays- normal waking hours and construction vehicles would be properly muffled, Therefore, noise generated during this time is not anticipated to be significant. All construction activities would be conducted in compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance. Construction noise may result in short-term ground borne vibrations and noise levels. However, there is a relatively low potential for noise impacts from the construction site as conditioned, thus resulting in a less than significant impact.
XIII. c - d) Less then Significant. Noise from the proposed residential lots would be typical of a residential neighborhood, similar to surrounding uses. The project would not increase ambient noise levels beyond what is normally acceptable of residential land uses (50-60 dBA). Therefore, there would be no significant impacts.
XIII. e - f) No Impact. The project is not located within an airport land use p lan or within two miles of a public airport and is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, the project would not expose people to excessive aircraft noise levels.
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (e.g., by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly
(e.g., through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Setting: Changes in population (and housing) in and of themselves are generally characterized as social and economic effects and are not considered physical effects on the environment. CEQA provides that economic or social effects are not considered significant effects on the environment unless the social and/or economic changes are connected to physical environmental effects.
XIV. a - c) Less than Significant Impact . The proposed project would not induce substantial population growth, displace existing housing, or people . The parcel at 2200 Brush Creek Road has one single family residence, which will remain, and 0 Bridgewood is vacant; no new development is proposed on either site at this time. The project site at 2210 Brush Creek Road currently supports a 1,470 square foot single -family residence, to remain, and provide 4 new residential lots, approximately 0.22 to 0.38 acres. The project proposes to annex the property into the City of Santa Rosa and proposes a land use designation of Very Low Residential ( 0.2 to 2.0
39 Brush Creek Minor Subdivison
units per gross acres), allowed by the City of Santa 2035 General Plan. All increases in housing numbers, along with the accompanying infrastructure to serve this development, were anticipated and analyzed in the City of Santa Rosa 2035 General Plan. Therefore, since the project is consistent with the General Plan, the potential for induced growth is not considered significantly impactful.
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Setting: The City of Santa Rosa provides Police Protection and Fire Protection services within City boundaries. The Police Department provides neighborhood -oriented policing services, comprising eight patrol teams and roughly 251 employees. The Police Department is located at 965 Sonoma Avenue.
The Fire Department has a staff of approximately 146 employees serving a community population of over 181,000 residents. There are ten fire stations strategically located around the city. General Plan policy PSF -E-1 sets a 5 -minute travel time for emergency response within the city.
According to the General Plan, two new fire stations would be constructed in the future, one of which would be located at the corner of Kawana Springs Road and Franz Kafka Avenue. The project’s addition of vehicle trips to the adjacent grid street network is not expected to cause a reduction in travel speeds that would result in significant delays for emergency vehicles. A 5 - minute response time is expected to be achieved due to various approach accesses and the ability of emergency response vehicles to override traffic controls.
The City’s public school system is made up of eight public school districts, 33 elementary schools, 5 middle schools, five comprehensive high schools, and one continuation high school, serving an
40 Brush Creek Minor Subdivison
estimated 16,698 students from kindergarten through 12th grade. According to the General Plan, four new elementary schools and two new middle schools are anticipated in order to accommodate buildout.
The City’s Recreation and Parks Department operates, manages, and maintains a total of 12 community parks, 52 neighborhood parks, three special purpose parks, and three trail parks. The Sonoma County Regional Parks maintains a number of regional parks and trails in the general vicinity of the Penstemon Project site. The closest of which are Taylor Mountain Regional Park, Spring Lake Regional Park, Colgan Creek Trail, and Hunter Creek Trail.
The City charges impact fees on new development such as the proposed project in order to offset the cost of improving or expanding City facilities. Impact fees are used to fund the construction or expansion of needed capital improvements associated with buildout of the General Plan. The City’s impact fees include the Capitol Facilities Fee and School Impact Fees to finance required public facilities and service improvements.
XV. a , b ) Less Than Significant Impact . Fire Station #5, located on Parker Hill Road, is approximately 1.9 miles to the west of the project site, and Fire Station #6, located on Calistoga Road, is approximately 2.4 miles to the southeas t. The project site is located within the Santa Rosa Police Beat 1 patrol area. The proposed 4 new residential lots at 2210 Brush Creek Road and the existing dwelling units would result in a minimal increase in the demand for the City’s public services. The increase would not trigger the need for an expansion of services, staffing, or otherwise affect required service ratios. Increasing d emands on public services were previously anticipated as part of the General Plan build out and are funded by impact fees that provide funding for the incremental expansion of services.
According to the Santa Rosa General Plan EIR, compliance with the Cit y’s General Plan goals and policies related to police services would ensure impacts would be less than significant.
Revenues and taxes generated from the new development would contribute to funding for facilities and services that have been identified by t he police and fire departments as needed for services in the future resulting in a less-than-significant impact to police protection services.
XV. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located within the Santa Rosa City High School District and the Rincon Valley Union Elementary District. The proposed development at 2210 Brush Creek Road will likely generate 3-4 new students throughout the K-12 school system.
The students attending public schools will be served by the closest City schools (Madrone Elementary, Rincon Valley Middle School, Maria Carrillo High School). Pursuant to SB 50, the project applicant would be required to pay school impact fees at the time of building permit application submittal. Payment of the development fee would provide funding for new school construction, improvements, and expansion to existing schools as needed. Payment of the required school impact fees would ensure satisfaction of the Proposition 1A/SB 50 statutory requirements and the impact would be less than significant.
XV. d, e) Less Than Significant Impact . The Project will not generate a substantial increase in demands that warrant the expansion or construction of new public park facilities as there are numerous existing parks and trails that provide recreational opportunities. While the 4 new residential lots would create a slight increase in the use of surrounding parks, the existing park facilities will be sufficient to meet active and passive recreational demands of the new residents.
Rinconada Park is the closest neighborhood park , approximately 2.17 acres in size, it is located on Culebra Ave within a mile of the project site. There are no other aspects of the Project that would result in adverse impacts to existing parks or necessitate additional park development or
41 Brush Creek Minor Subdivison
potentially impact other public facilities Therefore, impacts to parks and other facilities will be less than significant. (See also Section XVI Recreation.) XVI. RECREATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
Setting: The City of Santa Rosa provides recreational opportunities, including public plazas and gathering places and neighborhood, community, citywide and special purpose parks, and facilities throughout the city. The City has several parks on the east side of the City, and new parks are being developed in order to meet the needs of the community. According to the Santa Rosa General Plan, the City has a total of approximately 531 acres of neighborhood and community parks, 170 acres of undeveloped parkland, and 14 community and/or recreational facilities (as of 2008). Additionally, the City of Santa Rosa is located in close proximity to regional parks operated by the County of Sonoma and State of California including Spring Lake (Sonoma County Regional Park), Taylor Mountain Regional Park and Open Space Preserve (Sonoma County Regional Park) and Annadel (State Park), which offer a variety of passive and active recreational opportunities.
The City’s General Plan identifies a parkland ratio of 3.5 acre per 1,000 reside nts. Based on the 2035 buildout population of 233,520 and the proposed parks facilities that will occupy 864.15 acres, the city park facilities will achieve a ratio of 3.7 acres at General Plan build -out, thereby exceeding the parks ratio standard.
XVI. a - b) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed 4 new residential lots would minimally impact the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks, and other recreational facilities.
Accelerated physical deterioration of the facilities are not anticipated.
XVII. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Would the project:
Potentially
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
No
42 Brush Creek Minor Subdivison
Significant
Impact
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Significant
Impact
Impact
a) Conflict with an applicable plan,
ordinance or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system,
taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and
non-motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system,
including but not limit ed to
intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths,
and mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns
that result in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature or incompatible uses?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or
programs supporting alternative
transportation?
Setting: The project site is located along Brush Creek Road, Lyric Lane, and Bridgewood Drive, approximately 500 feet from the Fountaingrove Parkway/Montecito Boulevard intersection, an arterial roadway in Santa Rosa. Fountaingrove Parkway has two 12-foot travel lanes, as well as a bicycle lane and pedestrian sidewalk. The closest transit service to this project is the corner of Mission and Montecito with a 30-minute frequency served by bus route 4/4b.
XVII. a, b) Less than Significant Impact. The project does not generate an amount of traffic that would be a concern as far as Level of Service gores. Additionally, the 4 new residential lots would be below the 110 vehicle trips per day, therefore it would cause no impact.
XVII. c) No Impact. Construction at 2210 Brush Creek Road would be completed using ground- based vehicles. The project would not exceed the height of a two-story structure and would therefore not affect air traffic patterns or result in safety risks.
XVII. d) No Impact. The project would not substantially increase an y hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use.
XVII. e) No Impact. The proposed residential lots would be accessed via Lyric Lane, an existing fire safe cul-de-sac serving existing residential dwellings.
43 Brush Creek Minor Subdivison
XVII. f) No impact. The project does not conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation.
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section 5020.
1(k), or
b) A resource determined by the lea d
agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1 the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native
American tribe.
Setting: An archaeological survey report was conducted by Alta Consulting in September 2020 , requested by Lytton Rancheria. The report documents the findings of the cultural resources assessment that was conducted for the proposed project.
XVIII. a, b) No Impact. A review of archaeological site and survey maps revealed that 17 cultural resource studies have been previously performed within a half -mile radius of the current project area and had been previously surveyed for archaeological resources. The survey did no t identify any cultural resources.
The site is not listed on the California Register of Historical Places or on any local register of historical resources. The City of Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 and adopted EIR does not identify any cultural or historic al resources of significance on the project site. However, the potential to uncover cultural resources during construction is a possibility, therefore if human remains are encountered, excavation or disturbance of the location must be halted in the vicinit y of the find, and the county coroner contacted. If the coroner determines the remains are Native American, the
44 Brush Creek Minor Subdivison
coroner will contact the Native American Heritage Commission. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify the person or persons believ ed to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The most likely descendent makes recommendations regarding the treatment of the remains with appropriate dignity.
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the Regional Water
Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies avail able
to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider that it has
inadequate capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with insufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
Setting: Upon annexation, the project will be located within the City of Santa Rosa’s city limits and the Urban Growth Boundary with access to the City’s services.
45 Brush Creek Minor Subdivison
XIX. a , c ) Less than Significant Impact . According to the City’s General Plan, wastewater treatment is generally sufficient to meet anticipated housing development needs through 2035.
The existing water supplies, facilities and infrastructure are sufficient to meet the demands of the 4 residential lots, and existing single -family dwelling without new co nstruction of water supply facilities.
XIX. b) Less than Significant Impact. Project will utilize water obtained from the City’s water system to meet onsite water demands. Water would be accommodated via the installation of new water laterals that would connect to the proposed residential lots.
XIX. d, e) Less than Significant Impact. The City of Santa Rosa currently contracts with Recology to provide solid waste collection and recycling. Recology collects and transports commercial and solid waste to Central Landfill at 500 Meacham Road north of Petaluma. The amount of solid waste generated by the project would be considered minimal and is consistent with the service needs anticipated by the General Plan. The project will be required to adhere to all regulations governing the disposal of solid waste. Construction- related waste will be r educed through the development of a construction waste management plan. Submittal of a construction waste management plan is a mandatory measure of CALGreen requirements that have been adopted by the City. The plan shall be prepared after selection of the actual building materials.
Because the project will not exceed local capacity and will be in compliance with City requirements, the project will not conflict with local, or state management reduction statutes and impact will be less than significant.
XIX. f) Less than Significant Impact . The anticipated volume of solid waste generated by construction activities and project residents would be served by Central Landfill . Therefore, no significant impact would occur from the disposal of solid waste generated by the project.
XIX. g) Less than Significant Impact. The project includes on-site trash and recycling collection and would be required to contract for the collection of project trash, recycling, and yard waste.
XX. WILDFIRE
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Substantially impair and adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and
other factors, exacerbate wildfire
risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the
46 Brush Creek Minor Subdivison
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire
c) Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that
may exacerbate fire risk or that ma y
result in temporary or on ongoing
impacts to the environment?
d) Expose people or structures to
significant risks including down
slope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-
fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
Setting: The City of Santa Rosa is located within an area susceptible to wildland fires with expansive areas of chaparral, woodland, grassland, and scrub vegetation communities as well as steep slopes, and climatic conditions. The project is located within the City’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The project site is adjacent to the Wildlife Urban Interface Zones boundary.
In October 2017, the Tubbs Fire (Central LNU Complex) burned approximately 36,807 acres in the northern and eastern portions of the City. In 2019 the Kincade fire burned areas to the north of Santa Rosa. Residents were exposed to direct effect s of the wildfire, such as the loss of a structure, and to the secondary effects of the wildfire, such as smoke and air pollution. Smoke generated by wildfire consists of visible and invisible emissions that contain particulate matter (soot, tar, water vap or, and minerals) and gases (carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides). Public health impacts associated with wildfire include difficulty in breathing, odor, and reduction in visibility.
XX. a) Less than Significant Impact. Project site is located within the UGB and will be included in the City’s Emergency Operation Plan. Therefore, in the event of a wildfire the proposed project is not expected to substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and impacts will be less than significant.
XX. b-d) Less than Significant Impact . The project site is relatively flat to gently sloping, with the exception of the steeply sloping banks of Rincon Creek. There are no mapped landslides at the project site. The proposed str uctures will require a building permit and built-in compliance with the California Building Code in affect at the time of Building Permit submittal.
There are no other factors, such as steep slopes or prevailing winds that will exacerbate fire risk or expose project occupants to the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire, post- fire slope instability, or post -fire flooding. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant.
47 Brush Creek Minor Subdivison
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self -
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the
number, or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects.)
c) Does the project have environmental
effects which would cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
XXI(a) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project is located within the City’s Urban Growth Boundary and potential impacts associated with its development have been anticipated by the City’s General Plan and analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Upon annexation and General Plan amendment, the project would be consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation, goals, policies, and programs. All potential impacts to biological resources have been mitigated to levels less than significant, as identified in Section IV Biological Resources. The mitigation identifies measures the protection of nesting birds and bats to ensure no impacts result in degradation or reductions of plants or animals.
The arborist report determined the site to be overgrown with dense stands of trees along the property lines, many of wh ich were non -native (Eucalyptus and Privets). He recommended to preserve as many of the mature Coast Live Oaks, Valley Oaks, and Coastal Redwoods as possible.
He recommended to plant three 24” box Coast Live Oaks or Valley Oaks on each proposed lot to mitigate any potential disturbance.
48 Brush Creek Minor Subdivison
Section V assessed the potential for cultural resources at the site. There are no historically significant buildings and protective state and locally mandated measures described in Section V will ensure that any potential impacts to subsurface cultural resources related to construction are avoided.
With implementation of mitigation measures, set forth in the sections on air quality (mitigation to reduce the potential for fugitive dust and TAC’s), hazards/hazardous materials (to avoid exposure to asbestos and lead based paint), noise (construction-related noise), and transportation and circulation (intersection improvements), all potentially significant impacts are all reduced to levels of less than significant. The project’s adherence to Santa Rosa’s development standards, and the Conditions of Approval will ensure the project’s potential impacts on the quality of the environment would be reduced to levels of less than significant.
XXI(b) Less Than Significant . CEQA Guidelines (Section 15355(a)(b)) defines cumulative impacts as “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or increase in environmental impacts. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the proposed project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.” The analysis of cumulative impacts for each environmental factor can employ one of two methods to establish the effects of other past, current, and probable future projects. Projections from an adopted general plan or related planning documents or from a prior environmental document that has been adopted or certified, providing these adopted documents describe or evaluate the regional or area -wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact. This Initial Study evaluates cumulative impacts using the General Plan EIR. As described in the analysis above, potential environmental impacts are expected to remain at, or be mitigated to, less than significant levels. The project does not increase the severity of any of the cumulatively considerable impacts from the levels identified and analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
The Project does not have the potential to create impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. The environmental effects of the Project are typical of residential developments and will all be reduced to less that significant levels through the implementation of standard conditions of approval, or through mitigation measures c ontained in this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.
All other potentially cumulative impacts (agricultural resources, air quality, greenhouse gases, drainage, noise, public services and utilities, and transportation) are either less than significant or are also mitigated such to levels of less than significant or reduced through the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval or by the implementation of development standards, such that they will not add to a cumulatively considerable impact.
XXI(c) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project does not present adverse impacts upon human beings, either directly or indirectly. The project has the potential to result in adverse impacts to humans due to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hazards/ hazardous materials, noise, transportation and circulation, and tribal cultural resources. With implementation of the mitigation measures set forth in this Initial Study, the project will have less than significant environmental effect that would directly or indirectly impact human beings onsite or in the project vicinity.
49 Brush Creek Minor Subdivison
SOURCES
• 2019 CA Building Code
• Alta Archaeological Consulting, Archaeological Survey Report, September 2020 • BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, May 2010, updated 2011
• BAAQMD Website and Significance Thresholds, 2011
• California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 20 and Title 24 • California Department of Conservation Division of Land Resources Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (2012).
• City of Santa Rosa Design Guidelines, September 2005 (updated in 2010, 2011) • City of Santa Rosa General Plan/ Final EIR, 2009
• City of Santa Rosa Zoning Code, 2006
• David fowler Designs, Arborist Report, November 12, 2020 • PJC & Associates, Inc, Geotechnical Investigation, February 3, 2021 • Santa Rosa Climate Action Plan, adopted June 2012
• Sol Ecology, Biological Resources Report, November 19, 2020 • State of California, Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975, updated in 1977
50 Brush Creek Minor Subdivison
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The project site is located in close proximity to existing sensitive receptors including existing surrounding residential uses to the north, south, east, and west of the project site. Madrone Elementary School is within 0.6 miles of the site. With implementation of mitigation measures set forth in the Air Quality and Noise sections, construction activities associated with the development would result in short-term air quality emissions and noise levels that fall below levels of significance and would cease once construction is finished. In addition to mitigation measures set forth in this Initial Study, the project will be conditioned to achieve city standards with respect to noise, safety, and drainage. Building and improvement plans will be reviewed to ensure compliance with applicable building codes and standards.
With implementation of mitigation measures, conditions of approval, and the City’s development standards, the project does not present potentially significant impacts that may have an adverse effect upon human beings, either directly or indirectly. Therefore, the project will have less than significant impacts due to substantial adverse environmental effects.
Potential impacts related to hazardous materials will be mitigated to insignificant levels. The project will be conditioned to make City standard improvements or provide mitigations with respect to roadways, storm drainage and other impacts. Building and i mprovement plans will be reviewed to ensure compliance with applicable building codes and standards.
Therefore, on the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the Project have been made by or agreed to by the Project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGA TIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the Proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the Proposed Project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets . An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant ef fects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the Proposed Project, nothing further is required.
Signature: Date:
Printed Name: Kristinae Toomians, Senior Planner